watchlist

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does mention the paid nature ($0.01 via x402) and that the data is current, which adds useful context. However, it does not describe return format, freshness limits, pagination, or any side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the pricing/payment detail is separated clearly. It earns its length without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential content and cost. It could be more complete by stating what fields or token data will be returned, but it is adequate for a simple watchlist lookup.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters)Skip? The schema coverage is trivially 100%, and the description adds relevant context about what the watchlist contains)Skip? For a no-parameter tool, the description sufficiently explains the semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a watchlist of high-volume tokens that passed a safety screen, with current safety data. It is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like flagged_tokens or trending, though it lacks an explicit verb.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for retrieving safe high-volume tokens but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as token_safety, flagged_tokens, or trending. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.